Design Thread - For Discussion and Review

[Zantonius Hamm]

I want someone to do Leopold. Or at least a leaderscreen, to update Scramble for Africa.

JFD is planning Leo of the Jungle. If not, he'd be one of our top priorities for sure.

Well, hamm had a concept.... And the design in the scenario isn't that bad...

It is.

I assume thats because Italian Somaliland was originally a weird patchwork of protectorates which eventually got integrated into IEA? If so, its an odd focus since thats how the majority of colonial powers went about expanding their influence. I know its how the British worked in the East Indies and I don't know much about French history but I assume they followed a fairly similar model in a lot of places. Also, it doesn't make a lot of sense when referring to the most important Italian colony, Libya, which was straight up seized from a major power and though it technically got integrated in like 1934 that didn't really change too much on the ground - they basically did exactly what France did with Algeria. Besides, in Somalia, where the UA makes most sense, its a stretch to say anything further than the coasts was governed that centrally anyway - Italy famously sucked at projecting its power beyond the coastlines.

Like Olav said, we need to choose one civ to represent traits that many empires shared. In this case, yes, it was how protectorates became colonies, but also how separate entities got assimilated into one (Cyrenaica and Tripolitania to Libya, Eritrea, Somaliland and Ethiopia to Italian East Africa). The Culture boost is either way supposed to represent the Italian nationalism: culture helps in resisting foreign influence.

I get that, I just think its fairly good etiquette to avoid taking uniques from other peoples mods. Besides, I'm not sure the Italian campaign is wholly worth a unique - it was an important moment, sure, but it twists the Italian focus into an all out warmonger equally at home on sea and land which is simply not true for the infamously incompetent Italian army. Having a naval UU is, I agree, very important, but an infantry UU just seems less important to me. I'd go with a UB focused on coasts, maybe a harbour replacement? That said, if you're fixed on an infantry unit, Dubats or Reculs might fit better for a colonial Italy.

Well, like Olav said, I actually asked JFD before posting the design here (although I didn't really need to, I guess).

This will likely be the only WW1-era Italy mod to ever be made, so I want there to be at least one reference to the Great War. It does not need] to be the Alpini, but I think it fits VE3's Italy much more than VE2's.

In terms of representing 'Italian warmongering in general', Albania was never really integrated that well, it stayed essentially a puppet the whole time, it was a protectorate first off and then a PU, never directly ruled. The fact that this was the most successful Italian expansion into Europe says a lot about why a land warmongering focus doesn't represent Italian expansionism on land.

Disagreed. Albania was first a protectorate, and was then elevated to a monarchy in a personal union with Italy. VE3 was even King of the Albanians. Also, like Olav said, (he summed up my thoughts very well) this civ is not just a representation of the historical Italian Empire, it also contains a bit of what Italy wanted to do. Had Italy succeeded, their territories in the Balkans would no doubt be assimilated to one territory.

I'd keep the puppet focus but use it to be twisted into a game which emphasises a big, silly navy and full control of the waterways around you. This was Italy's constant dream: control of the Mediterranean. (and they could've got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling British!) So I think a focus on warmongering for the sake of warmongering just doesn't represent what Italy was trying to achieve, however, warmongering for the sake of being king of the waves? now thats a lot more Italian.

I like the general idea in this design (puppets, naval domination), but eeeh... I want Culture! Italian nationalism, y'know.

Zantonius, I understand how you want to represent colonialism more for France since it is the era we are depicting, but I also think it's important to have some variety in our European civs. Italy is already going to be militaristic, Teddy is going to be City State intimidation, and I'm sure there's a couple others where colonialism and war is appropriate. Also, if we're doing Cecil Rhodes I'm going to assume he's an economic civ and I personally think that the Viceroyalty of Peru should be production and gold focused. That could result in three designs which can go for a diplomatic victory and still none that go for cultural. That's why I wanted France to be less about colonization and more about culture. There's still the Foreign Legion to represent imperialism, I just don't think that every single one of the Europeans need to have a dominate imperialistic focus.

France/The French Colonies will primarily have a Great Writer and imperialism focus, aka a Tourism focus. Colonial France can't be done without heavy emphasis on imperialism; after all, France was the second largest empire at the time, and their expansion in the late 1800s was insane.

Also, I don't think you should say that 'we' are doing these civs - you're not a member of Age of Imperialism, that's just me and Olav. Don't take that as an insult, you are a good contributor.

How large? Does it scale?

Sure, whatever you say.

 

[Tarmont]

This will likely be the only WW1-era Italy mod to ever be made, so I want there to be at least one reference to the Great War.

I can't speak for Viregel, but I think he'd be keen of making one (And naturally I'd help him ). He even has the second post of his thread dedicated to WW1 civs.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

I never heard him express a desire to make Italy, though, and since Italy will be our next civ after the Dervishes, I don't see why he'd do them anyway.

 

[Hoop Thrower]

Damn it GPuzzle, make your civs less difficult to quote!

Anyways, dug out this design I made for the same civ:

Riograndense Republic:

Ragamuffin War: On the Outbreak of War, each Pasture Spawns a Cavalry unit according to age (Chariot in Ancient, Horseman in Classical, Knight in Medieval, Lanceiro Negro in Renaissance, Farrapo in Industrial, Landship in Modern, Tank in Atomic, Modern Armor in Information). No penalty for lack of horses.
UU: Lanceiro Negro: Replaces Lancer. Bonus against Gun Units instead of Cavalry. Upgrades to Landship.
UU: Farrapo: Replaces Cavalry. Farrapos Generate Culture when defeating enemies as well as extra great general points. These abilities are kept on upgrade.

Now, let's contrast with the one you made:

UA:Liberty, Equality, Humanity: Units gain Experience twice as fast and gain Golden Age points from kills for the duration of the war after a Great Person is born. +5 Experience from Pastures and Great Works.

UB: Estancia: Barracks replacement. +1 Food and +1 Culture from Horses, Sheep and Cattle. Has two Great Work of Music slots that provide +10 XP when filled.

UU: Farrapo: Cavalry replacement. May build Pastures. If garrisoned in a city, the city gains +2 Great Musician points and +10% Great Person generation.

Bearing both in mind, here's my suggestion:

Riograndense Republic:
UA: Glorious Decade: Generates Great People Points from Defeating units during war. Pastures Generate +1 Production after a Great Person is expended.
UU: Farrapo: Replaces Cavalry. Can build Pastures and Fortify on them.
UB: Estancia: Replaces Stable. +15% Production towards Cavalry units. +1 Production and Great Musician Points from worked Pastures. Has 2 Great Work of Music slots.

Yeah, design is terribly weird. But I think I like it, certainly is synergistic.

 

[OrderofOlav]

What is a good length for this extra pasture production? I like the idea for great births bonuses in general, how is it connected historically? Does it have to do with Garibaldi and the creation of their anthem? I think it would be funny to encourage using Great musicians for your war effort, kind of like what the AI does for some mysterious reason......

Also what is special about fortifying on pastures? Do you mean they receive defensive terrain bonuses from it?


I guess I am willing to share Victor Emmanuel III LS if Viregel desires so, like how Moriboe shared his leader screens from Jan with JFD

 

[Natan35]

Since you all at South America already...

Portugal(John II)

Spoiler :

UA: Age of Discovery
Gain gold from discovering coastal tiles, based on their distance from the capital. May improve luxuries in neutral coast tiles. Doing this will add the tile's yields to the nearest city and will grant gold whenever a foreign unit passes near the tile(doubled for trade units).

UI: Feitoria
Unlocked at astronomy. May* be built in the territory of foreign** cities(one per city), and may improve all luxuries. Trade routes You send\ receive from a city with a Feitoria will provide double gold from resource diversity, and will grant your city production equal to 50% of the gold it receives. If built in CS territory, will provide a random tribute each X*** turns and will increase your influence resting point by 5.

UNW: Casa da Índia
Replaces east India company. The usual east India company bonuses are increased by 50% for trade routes sent from a city with a Feitoria. trade routes from the city will yield +1 GPT per each trade route sent to it. Each trade route sent to the city from a city with a Feitoria will provide a unique luxury.

*can only be built if you have open borders with the city's owner.
**if the city is occupied\ puppeted, by anyone, the Feitoria is pillaged(and may only be repaired by you).
*** scales with game speed.

Portuguese Brazil

Spoiler :

UA: Tratado de Tordesilhas
May buy tiles, civilian and recon unit with faith. Units bought with ignore terrain costs and start with survivlism III. Dyes and sugar provide double quantity, and receive access to the unique brazilwood resource.

UI: Brazilwood Camp
Unlocked at machinery. May only be built on jungle\ forest tiles with dyes or brazilwood. Yields 2 gold, and additional 1 gold after aesthetics.

UU: Bandeirantes
Replaces explorer*. Stronger(20 ), and may settle city(does not consume the unit, may only happen once per unit). Additionally, it may enslave enemy civilians, gaining the ability to improve and repair tiles.

Brazilwoo yields 1 culture and 1 production. Terrain: jungle, forest(flat).
*if you play with ExCE. Otherwise: Replaces Musketman. Unlike it, unlocked at astronomy, and may settle one city(does not consume the unit). Has +1 movement and vision, and may be upgraded from the scout.

Empire of Brazil(D. Pedro II)

Spoiler :

UA: Great People!
Choose between culture or science boost upon completing a building that provides one of those yields(increased for wonders). During WLtKDs and golden ages, the science output of cities is increased by 20%.

UU: Para-Class
Unlike the ironclad which it replaces, the para-class is a ranged unit(45 , 40 :c5strength), and does not have any bonuses against cities. However, it receives a significant boost against land units(33%). And also has the bombardment I promotion.

UB: Shipyard
Replaces Seaport. In addition to its effects, it grants naval units trained in this city +15XP, and increases production towards naval units by 10% more.

 

[Tarmont]

Since you all at South America already...

I actually really liked the first part of D. Pedro II UA (The second part is cool too, but I don't like static effects). Although the sole naval focus for the other uniques is kinda weird; I know we had a good navy (IIRC, don't throw stones at me if I'm wrong ) around this period but still...

For Portugal though, why did you get rid of the Nau?

 

[Natan35]

Yay!(one Natan- hunter down, three more to go)
Yes, you had a good navy, the best at south America. That's why the uniques are navy focused. I had a completely different UA in mind, but I decided I should go with something else... Anyway:

The grandson of Marcus Aurelius
Military buildings increase grant +2 XP to units trained in their city per each era passed since they were completed. During golden ages, this bonus is doubled and converted to production during unit construction. Gain golden age points from kills(increased in friendly territory).

(Don't through stones at me too...)
The nau... Where should I put it now?

 

[GPuzzle]

Uhm, Natan, we had the most out of everything in SA because we were massive. If anything, Vargas should get a militaristic focus. Pedro II was a patron of the arts and sciences rather than a general. I think that it should have a Social Policy and/or Tech focus. But that's just me.

 

[Tarmont]

Uhm, Natan, we had the most out of everything in SA because we were massive. If anything, Vargas should get a militaristic focus. Pedro II was a patron of the arts and sciences rather than a general. I think that it should have a Social Policy and/or Tech focus. But that's just me.

To be honest I don't see why Vargas should have a militaristic focus and Pedro not. Social policies fit for both, but so does a militaristic focus (For Vargas, World War II that wasn't even that much of a big deal for Brazil, and the method he used to rise to power. And for Pedro II there were the wars in Uruguay and Paraguay. Otherwise the military wasn't that much of a big deal for either, and both of them fell out of favour with the military at the end of their lifes). So the reasoning to have Vargas be a militaristic civ and Pedro a cultural-scientific one is kinda arbitrary.

 

[GPuzzle]

Eh, if we're going for a militaristic Brazil I'd rather have it as one of our dictatorships, and the 2nd is problematic.

 

[Natan35]

Uhm, Natan, we had the most out of everything in SA because we were massive. If anything, Vargas should get a militaristic focus. Pedro II was a patron of the arts and sciences rather than a general. I think that it should have a Social Policy and/or Tech focus. But that's just me.

I only chose that focus for him because of:
A. Nickname.
B. Active participation of war, during a period which has been called the "Brazilian golden age" by some.

 

[Hoop Thrower]

Dunno, personally I'd say "Imperio dos Tropicos" would be a nice UA name for Pedro's time.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

I'm in love with that name now.

 

[Tarmont]

I'm in love with that name now.

Me too.

It shall be done

 

[GPuzzle]

Okay, I've been wondering about two things related to design:

- What is better, being iconic vs historical accuracy?

- Do you make your Civs based on your playstyle or do you make your Civs something that breaks with your usual playstyle?

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

- First, imagine making a Churchill civ without a naval and aerial defensive focus. That would be blasphemy. I mean, you could argue a colonial focus would work as well, given the importance of the colonies in the world war, but Britain in WW2 is only really known for being this impregnable turtle.On the other hand you have, for instance, colonial France - most iconic for la Belle Époque. But what other feat did the French do in that time? Build the second largest empire in the world at the time, expanding across Africa and Southeast Asia ridiculously quickly. If you concentrate the entire design around the cultural aspect, you miss out on something much more important.
In the end, it depends upon how iconic something is, and whether there is a different focus that would make way more sense.

- I wouldn't normally play about 67% of the civs I design. I am a peaceful Culture- and City-State-pursuing player, while most of my designs are more... varied? I'unno.

 

[DoctorMcGann]

If I only played civs in my playstyle, I'd have to remake a lot of them
Siam: May conquer all the things 67% faster.
Gandhi: Nukes 75.4% more nukey

 

[Uighur_Caesar]

I think a design has to implement both historical accuracy and be iconic, but the degree to which you do varies. For example, the Mongols are most iconic for being conquerors and rightfully so. However, they were also exceptional for their religious tolerance at the time and were incredibly important in Silk Road trade. They also assimilated themselves into the people they conquered such as when the Ilkhanate adopted Islam. Those are the four things I immediately think of when I think of the Mongols in terms of possible themes for a civ. However, if you were to design a trade based Mongolia with bonuses for religion that would be really weird. Conquest is what is most associated with them and therefore it needs to be implemented. You could include something about conquered people as I believe Light in the East is doing with the Yuan. Either way, conquest is the most important aspect of the Mongols and should be a central part of the design. There are other times when accuracy is more important than being iconic. The best examples are any civ splits. England's navy and empire is the most iconic thing about them, but if you decided to do a Henry VIII split you wouldn't be able to include the navy and would rather have to focus on religion. In conclusion, when making a design for an entire civ, like in the base game, I believe being iconic is more important. If a split is being done, representing that civ in that particular moment in history is more important.

On the question of play styles, I believe that design dictates your play style for that civ. Of course we all prefer certain play styles than others. I personally can't do ICS when going wide, I'll settle a few cities and then conquer everything else. As long as the civ is fun to play and either accurate or iconic depending on circumstances, it's fine.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

However, if you were to design a trade based Mongolia with bonuses for religion that would be really weird.

Meh, the former would work for Kublai and the latter for the Golden Horde. I only associate warmongering with Temujin himself. But that may just be me.

(If you were to ask ~10 year-old me for a leader of China I'd instantly say Kublai Khan, I'd betcha. I mean, Marco Polo, Beijing... he had it all! I guess that's why I associate Kublai with trade more than warmongering (Marco Polo))